Skip to main content

Citizenwald

Citizenwald's Public Library

about 4 hours ago

=summary of @amhistfail

"by Margaret Biser on June 29, 2015

Up until a few weeks ago, I worked at a historic site in the South that included an old house and a nearby plantation. My job was to lead tours and tell guests about the people who made plantations possible: the slaves.

The site I worked at most frequently had more than 100 enslaved workers associated with it— 27 people serving the household alone, outnumbering the home's three white residents by a factor of nine. Yet many guests who visited the house and took the tour reacted with hostility to hearing a presentation that focused more on the slaves than on the owners.
"He said, "Listen, I just wanted to say that dragging all this slavery stuff up again is bringing down America""

The first time it happened, I had just finished a tour of the home. People were filing out of their seats, and one man stayed behind to talk to me. He said, "Listen, I just wanted to say that dragging all this slavery stuff up again is bringing down America."

I started to protest, but he interrupted me. "You didn't know. You're young. But America is the greatest country in the world, and these people out there, they'd do anything to make America less great." He was loud and confusing, and I was 22 years old and he seemed like a million feet tall.

Lots of folks who visit historic sites and plantations don't expect to hear too much about slavery while they're there. Their surprise isn't unjustified: Relatively speaking, the move toward inclusive history in museums is fairly recent, and still underway. And as the recent debates over the Confederate flag have shown, as a country we're still working through our response to the horrors of slavery, even a century and a half after the end of the Civil War.
More on race in America

The Confederate flag symbolizes white supremacy — and it always has

Stop waiting for racism to die out with old people

Obama is right. Racism is more than the n-word.

The majority of interactions I had with museum guests were positive, and most visitors I encountered weren't as outwardly angry as that man who confronted me early on. (Though some were. One favorite: a 60-ish guy in a black tank top who, annoyed both at having to wait for a tour and at the fact that the next tour focused on slaves, came back at me with, "Yeah, well, Egyptians enslaved the Israelites, so I guess what goes around comes around!")

Still, I'd often meet visitors who had earnest but deep misunderstandings about the nature of American slavery. These folks were usually, but not always, a little older, and almost invariably white. I was often asked if the slaves there got paid, or (less often) whether they had signed up to work there. You could tell from the questions — and, not less importantly, from the body language — that the people asking were genuinely ignorant of this part of the country's history.

The more overtly negative reactions to hearing about slave history were varied in their levels of subtlety. Sometimes it was as simple as watching a guest's body language go from warm to cold at the mention of slavery in the midst of the historic home tour. I also met guests from all over the country who, by means of suggestive questioning of the "Wouldn't you agree that..." variety, would try to lead me to admit that slavery and slaveholders weren't as bad as they've been made out to be.

On my tours, such moments occurred less frequently if visitors of color were present. Perhaps guests felt more comfortable asking me these questions because I am white, though my African-American coworkers were by no means exempt from such experiences. At any rate, these moments happened often enough that I eventually began writing them down (and, later, tweeting about them).

Taken together, these are the most common misconceptions about American slavery I encountered during my time interpreting history to the public:"

about 5 hours ago

"Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks

Guidance on New Additions
Compatible Additions to Historic Buildings
Revising an Incompatible Design for a New Addition
Incompatible New Additions
New Additions in Densely-Built Environments
Rooftop Additions
Designing a New Exterior Addition
Summary and References
Reading List
Download the PDF

A new exterior addition to a historic building should be considered in a rehabilitation project only after determining that requirements for the new or adaptive use cannot be successfully met by altering non-significant interior spaces. If the new use cannot be accommodated in this way, then an exterior addition may be an acceptable alternative. Rehabilitation as a treatment “is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”

The topic of new additions, including rooftop additions, to historic buildings comes up frequently, especially as it relates to rehabilitation projects. It is often discussed and it is the subject of concern, consternation, considerable disagreement and confusion. Can, in certain instances, a historic building be enlarged for a new use without destroying its historic character? And, just what is significant about each particular historic building that should be preserved? Finally, what kind of new construction is appropriate to the historic building? "

about 5 hours ago

"If you’d even consider asking “What’s the difference?” between Nazi Germany’s systematic murder of six million Jews and legal gay marriage, consider running for a seat on Alabama’s State Supreme Court. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore made just that comparison on June 29.

“Could I do this if I were in Nuremberg… say that I was following the orders of the highest authority to kill Jews?… Could I say I was ordered to do so?” The shocked interviewer reminded Moore that the Nuremberg trials had been about murder, not gay marriage. “Is there a difference?” he asked.

Moore’s comments were echoed by his personal attorney, Win Johnson, whom Moore appointed director of the legal staff of the state’s Administrative Office of Courts. Johnson was incensed by Governor Robert Bentley’s statement that he personally disagreed with the ruling, but would “uphold the law of the nation and this is now law.” He responded to the Governor in a letter that opened with “Jesus Christ is Lord of All.”

And then it got really weird."

about 5 hours ago

"Whether under Dutch, British, or American control, New York’s early development was supported by slavery. The Municipal Slave Market on present-day Wall Street between Water and Pearl streets operated from 1711 to 1762, and over three centuries since it was founded this history is finally recognized on an official city plaque.
The New York City slave market in New Amsterdam in 1655 (illustration by Howard Pyle from 1917, via Wikimedia)

The New York City slave market in New Amsterdam in 1655 (illustration by Howard Pyle from 1917, via Wikimedia) (click to enlarge)

The marker at Wall Street and Water Street was dedicated on Saturday, June 27, by Mayor Bill de Blasio. It was initially conceived back in 2011 during the activism of Occupy Wall Street, when Brooklyn-based artist and writer Chris Cobb began to research the site. Reaching out to places like the African Burial Ground National Monument which coordinated tours of Lower Manhattan including sites lacking markers, and Christopher Moore, former director of research at the Schomburg Center for Black Culture, Cobb helped develop the background information and advocate for the marker."
...By the mid-18th century approximately one in five people living in New York City was enslaved and almost half of Manhattan households included at least one slave.” It adds that although slavery was abolished by New York State in 1827, it wasn’t until 1841 that all enslaved people were freed due to enduring rights for non-resident slave owners.

At the dedication, Parks Commissioner Mitchell J. Silver stated: “Caring for our city means understanding its history — including its darkest periods.” Despite the numerous historic plaques in the city, with over 500 in New York City parks alone, much of this dark history goes overlooked. For example, just down the street from the new slave market marker are scars on the J. P. Morgan building from a 1920 bombing that killed 39, something only touched on in an informational plaque further down the street. The city’s history of slavery, which finally got major recognition with the unearthing of the African Burial Ground in 1990, remains significantly under recognized, such as the Second African Burial Ground which is without any sort of memorial beneath Sara D. Roosevelt Park.

about 5 hours ago

"Oren also argues that because Obama attended Columbia he was infected by the ludicrous views on orientalism of Edward Said, which permeate Middle East Studies. But Obama studied political science and not Middle East affairs and his exposure to Said was in his class on modern fiction. According to Obama’s roommate, Phil Boerner, quoted in David Remnick’s biography of Obama, the future president was underwhelmed by Said. Obama considered Said a “flake” and Boerner said neither he nor Obama were interested in his literary theory."

about 6 hours ago

"

Articles
Mapping the Most Expensive Artworks Sold by Country

by Claire Voon on July 2, 2015

0

The most expensive paintings from Europe (all images courtesy How Much)

The most expensive paintings from Europe (all images courtesy howmuch.net)

In May, an anonymous bidder purchased Pablo Picasso’s “Les femmes d’Alger (Version ‘O’)” (1955) for $160 million, paying an additional $19.35 million to Christie’s in commission fees. The nearly $180 million set a new sales record that prompted much comment on global inequality, and now a new series of maps created by howmuch.net attempts to look at art valuation based on country of origin. The website, which visualizes all types of cost estimates, filled in the areas of various nations with their most expensive paintings, detailing the sale prices below each map. The resulting imagery is quite compelling but should be taken with a grain of salt as the methodology of the researchers is not entirely consistent: it is unclear whether they focused on the birthplace or ancestries of artists or the countries these artists largely worked in. Ivan Aivazovsky, for example, whose painting occupies the place of the Republic of Armenia, is a Russian painter of Armenian descent who never lived in Armenia. While, Canada is represented by Lawren Harris, even though “Scene in the Northwest: Portrait of John Henry Lefroy” by Paul Kane fetch far higher at auction. The data was also taken from public auctions with reported prices, so the study is also incomplete as it does not include unconfirmed amounts. (An online spreadsheet is available to dissect the complete list of paintings, prices, and location.)

Still, aside from being pretty, the maps offer some insightful observations of the art market: "

about 6 hours ago

"PLAINWELL, Mich. — Sculptor Sarah Lindley is interested in places where people live and work, from the domestic interior to the natural environment. Lately, Lindley has turned to making maps to address those too-often-toxic encounters between nature and culture. In her current installation at the historic Plainwell Paper Mill Company in southwestern Michigan, she traces the watershed of the Kalamazoo River.

A site-specific piece suspended by nearly invisible threads, “Exposure Pathways” is constructed from thousands of square tubes of cut, folded, and glued cardstock that Lindley salvaged from the mill. The sculpture measures 15×32 feet in length and width, and is suspended nearly 5 feet off the ground. The tubes correspond to water trails; the paper armature below secures the patterns above and evokes a sense of subterranean strata. Visitors can stand on a nearby platform and envision how this angular abstraction plots the river and all of its tributaries as they flow towards Lake Michigan.

"

about 8 hours ago

"Librarians care about these issues. The Librarian of Congress should too.
Let's have a conversation about what the new Librarian of Congress could be doing."

about 10 hours ago

"Experts say that a new librarian should digitize more works, raise more money—and use email.
Powshuku / Flickr

2.6k
643

Robinson Meyer
Jun 18, 2015

In a month or six, the United States will get its first new Librarian of Congress in nearly three decades. The current librarian, James Billington, has held the title since his appointment by President Reagan in 1987. Though named by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the Librarian doesn’t change with every new White House. After being appointed, Librarians are free to serve as long as they want—that’s why there have been only 13 of them since 1802.

In other words, this will be the first time a new Librarian has been appointed since the invention of the web.

The Librarian is a surprisingly powerful role. In addition to claiming one of the best titles in government (though The Atlantic’s staff is split on whether “Senate Sergeant-at-Arms” or “U.S. Chief Justice” trump it), the new Librarian assumes considerable powers. This person will not only run the largest library in the world, with thousands of staff of its own, but also oversee the Copyright Office, the department which manages the U.S. copyright system. This gives them the power to declare what constitutes a copyright violation and what doesn’t."

about 11 hours ago

"It’s harder to stop and smell the roses these days, and not just because modern life is hectic. Thanks to generations of breeding for looks, roses’ scents have faded.

Now, a team of geneticists say they’ve found the gene that gives roses their scent, and that discovery may help rose breeders produce sweeter-smelling roses again.

Roses’ Fading Scent

When you sniff a rose, you’re inhaling a mixture of hundreds of chemical compounds that add up to a pleasant scent. Most of those nice-smelling compounds are alcohols called monoterpenes.

But many modern rose cultivars don’t produce as many monoterpenes as their ancestors once did. Natural selection originally put pressure on roses to evolve a sweet scent that would attract pollinators, but when rose breeders stepped in instead, things changed.

“Rose breeders have focused on the most commercially important characteristics,” explained geneticist and study co-author Philippe Hugueney. Today’s roses were bred for attractive looks and flowers that can stay fresh in a vase for a long time. Since they’re a commercial crop, they were also bred for disease resistance and the ability to survive transport around the world.

“Scent has not been a priority; therefore, it has been lost over the breeding process,” Hugueney said.
An Enzyme by Any Other Name

Now, many rose breeders want to restore scent to their flowers, Hugueney said, especially those who sell roses for the cut flower market. To do that, they’ll need to understand the genetics behind that sweet scent."

Jul 05, 15

"Islamism prevails even as we suppress free speech
Nick Cohen
Nick Cohen
The death of Bangladeshi secular blogger Avijit Roy should give pause to all those in the west who refuse to confront the fascism of our age
Murdered blogger Avijit Roy, pictured with his wife, Rafida Bonya Ahmed, on a tribute Facebook page.
Murdered blogger Avijit Roy, pictured with his wife, Rafida Bonya Ahmed, on a tribute Facebook page.

Saturday 4 July 2015 13.15 EDT Last modified on Saturday 4 July 2015 19.02 EDT

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+

Shares
274

No one could have predicted that the Bangladeshi writer Rafida Bonya Ahmed would make it to London last week. That she is alive at all is a miracle – to use a word of which she would thoroughly disapprove. As I watched her deliver the British Humanist Association’s annual Voltaire lecture , I saw a dignified and principled intellectual it was our duty to emulate and defend. I could not understand why anyone would want to harm, let alone kill, her

But many do. In February, Islamist fanatics hacked her husband, Avijit Roy, to death with meat cleavers as the couple left a book fair in Dhaka. They nearly killed Ahmed too: slicing off her thumb and covering her body with wounds. To hear her talk about her murdered husband made me long to have met him. He was a typical intellectual – hopeless with anything practical but in love with literature, science and free debate.

Together, Ahmed and Roy ran a secular blog that promoted the writings of young liberal Bangladeshis They wrote on evolution and humanism; they condemned extremism fearlessly, as the title of Roy’s 2014 book The Virus of Faith makes clear. Seeing and fearing a courageous opponent, the enemies of free thought killed him for his ideas.

Ahmed talked about how compromised the Bangladeshi state had become, and you could easily make the mistake of thinking her story had nothing to do with us. Yet there were guards at the doors of her lecture room, searching bags for bombs and guns. A widow, still recovering from the slash of meat cleavers, with no weapon to threaten anyone beyond the power of her thought, is as much a target in London as Dhaka.

The comparisons don’t stop there. Immigration has meant that Bangladeshi politics are British politics too. You will never understand why London’s East End returns politicians as grotesque as George Galloway or mayors as bent as Lutfur Rahman unless you know that Tower Hamlets is Jamaat-e-Islami’s British stronghold. Grasp that the party of Bangladesh’s religious right is always willing to lend its vote bank to politicians who bow before its prejudices and you will gaze on the East End’s fetid politics with less bewilderment.

Above all else, the fear that religious terror brings, the lies it makes people tell and concessions it forces them to make are as familiar here as on the subcontinent.

Ahmed was in despair about Bangladesh. Islamists had not only murdered her beloved husband, but two other atheist bloggers. As Bangladesh’s ruling party is officially secular, and as Islamists have opposed the state ever since Jamaat-e-Islami death squads collaborated with the Pakistani army in committing crimes that came close to genocide during Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence, the naive might assume that the government would be keen to fight her husband’s enemies.

Not so. After one prominent Jamaat activist was sentenced to death for his part in the 1971 war, Islamists responded by demanding that dozens of secularists who had allegedly “insulted” their famously thin-skinned religion be tried for blasphemy and condemned to death. The state did not reply that Bangladeshis had the freedom to believe what they wanted. It said the authorities would prosecute blasphemers under repressive laws that date from the British empire.

Liberals in Bangladesh are therefore on both Islamist death lists and police arrest lists. If killers with meat cleavers don’t get them, cops with warrants will. To Bangladesh’s shame, the state has threatened friends and allies of Ahmed and Roy with prison for the crime of “hurting religious sentiments” and jeopardising “communal harmony”.

Lenin said: “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Islamists must feel the same about the “moderate” governments they want to destroy. Instead of taking extremists on and upholding human rights, Bangladesh justifies extremism by turning on the liberal critics of religion and treating them as criminals. In one of the most pathetic interviews you’ll ever read, Sajeeb Wazed, the son of Sheikh Hasina told Reuters that his mother had found it prudent to offer only private condolences to Roy’s family after his assassination. Although “we believe in secularism”, the wretched man explained, the prime minister could not make a public stand “because our opposition party plays that religion card against us relentlessly, we cannot come out strongly. It’s about perception, not about reality.” (Incidentally, they are both related to Tulip Siddiq, the new Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn.)

Avijit Roy lost his life because he wanted to change reality, not perception. He knew the dangers, but knew too that there are fights that cannot be ducked. “Those who think victory will be realised without any bloodshed are living in a fool’s paradise,” he wrote before his death. “We risk our lives the moment we started wielding our pens against religious bigotry and fundamentalism.”

Compare the bravery of Bangladeshi intellectuals with the attitude of the bulk of the western intelligentsia. Whole books could be written on why it failed to argue against the fascism of our age – indeed I’ve written a couple myself – but the decisive reason is a fear that dare not speak its name. They are frightened of accusations of racism, frightened of breaking with the consensus, frightened most of all of violence. They dare not admit they are afraid. So they struggle to produce justifications to excuse their dereliction of duty. They turn militant religion into a rational reaction to poverty or western foreign policy. They maintain there is a moral equivalence between militant religion and militant atheism.

On occasion, they drop even that spurious attempt at evenhandedness and seem to suggest, as Professor Craig Calhoun, director of the London School of Economics, did recently, that the real menace facing universities is not students heading to Syria to rape and behead but secularists whose calls for free speech “challenge the faith and beliefs of religious students” and disrupt “campus harmony”. David Cameron will clearly have trouble taking his mission to “root out” extremism to the LSE.

For all the similarities, there is no moral equivalence between Britain and Bangladesh. They have thinkers of the calibre of Rafida Bonya Ahmed and Avijit Roy, while we have liberals whom Karl Marx might have looked at and said: “Religion is the opium of the intellectuals.”

Comments will be opened tomorrow morning
"

Jul 05, 15

"Researchers and funding agencies will foot the cost of publishing academic papers rather than readers, as academic journals adapt to a world in which open access becomes increasingly important, according to Nature Editor-in-Chief Philip Campbell.

What are the difficulties in getting research funders to pay for published papers?
See also

Open Science – lifting the lid on research

‘The journals have to cover their costs and research, so different journals have different costs, but if you look at the big journals which have professional staff, they put a lot of effort into copy editing and putting papers up online and maintaining them. If you are going to cover all of those costs, you are going to charge a group of authors for a paper in a journal like Nature well over GBP 10 000 (EUR 14 000), whereas the most people pay at the moment and are willing to pay I would say is GBP 5 000.

‘In the total scheme of things it is not a lot of money, but at the moment we are slightly stuck on that one, and actually there are whole disciplines that have no money anyway, like the social scientists do not have grants with funds attached that would allow them to pay for it.’

Do you think researchers and research funders will agree in the end to meet the full cost of publishing papers in journals like Nature?

‘Yes in the long run I do. I think that publishers will find ways of doing things more cheaply than they currently do and still maintain the quality, so that might bring the cost down, and also scientists will see the advantages and so will the funders. It is partly a matter of moving existing money that is currently spent on buying journals and subscriptions.’

What will be the impact of open access and open science?"

Jul 04, 15

"
Max Boot | @MaxBoot 06.24.2015 - 2:00 PM

In the wake of the Charleston massacre, a bipartisan consensus has formed in South Carolina to take down the Confederate flag that has been flying over the grounds of the statehouse. And the movement has spread well beyond South Carolina, with retailers such as Wal-Mart removing Confederate flag merchandise and states from Mississippi to Virginia taking steps to remove the Stars and Bars from license plates, flags, etc. I have suggested going further and renaming streets and schools named in honor of Confederate heroes such as Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as taking down public statues in honor of those men and others who fought for the Confederacy.

This has caused a predictable backlash from some conservatives who compare what is going on now to the rewriting of history undertaken by French revolutionaries, Russian Bolsheviks, and other radicals after seizing power — the kind of historical rewriting satirized in Orwell’s “1984.” I believe that these criticisms are wide of the mark.

No one is suggesting the rewriting of history — something that cannot be ordered by the government in any case, at least not in this country. Nor is anyone suggesting — at least I am not — removing the books of Mark Twain or William Faulkner from libraries because they contain depictions of racism. Heck, I’m not even suggesting that Amazon should stop selling bigoted, pro-Confederate tracts such as Thomas E. Woods’ crackpot Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Confederate flags can continue to be displayed in museums and Southerners can continue to go to Civil War cemeteries to honor the sacrifices of their ancestors who fought bravely in a bad cause.

But there is a big distinction to be made between remembering the past — something that, as a historian, I’m all in favor of — and honoring those who did bad things in the past. Remembrance does not require public displays of the Confederate flag, nor streets with names such as Jefferson Davis Highway — a road that always rankles me to drive down in Northern Virginia. Such gestures are designed to honor leaders of the Confederacy, who were responsible for the costliest war in American history — men who were traitors to this country, inveterate racists, and champions of slavery.

In this regard, honoring Jefferson Davis is particularly egregious, or, for that matter, Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan. But I believe even honoring the nobler Robert E. Lee is inappropriate. True, he was a brave and skilled soldier, but he fought in a bad cause. Modern Germany does not have statues to Erwin Rommel even though he — unlike Lee — turned at the end of the day against the monstrous regime in whose cause he fought so skillfully. Thus, I don’t believe it is appropriate to have statues of Lee, or schools named after him, although I admit in his case it’s a closer call than with Jefferson Davis.

This is not “rewriting” history; it’s getting history right. The rewriting was done by Lost Cause mythologists who created pro-Confederate propaganda (such as Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind) to convince their countrymen that the South was actually in the right even as it imposed slavery and then segregation. This required impugning those Northerners who went south after the Civil War to try to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. They were labeled “carpetbaggers,” and their memory was tarnished while the actions of the white supremacists they opposed were glorified.

As Sally Jenkins recently noted in the Washington Post, “[I]n 1957, John F. Kennedy won the Pulitzer Prize for Profiles in Courage, in which he distorted and maligned the character of Union Medal of Honor winner Adelbert Ames, chased from the Mississippi governor’s office during Reconstruction by White Line terrorists, while instead lauding L.Q.C. Lamar as the more heroic figure. Lamar drafted Mississippi’s ordinance of secession and raised the 19th Mississippi Infantry Regiment.”

JFK was not especially racist by the standards of his time and place; he was just the victim of the Lost Cause mythology that made flying the Confederate battle flag appear to be a legitimate act of reverence for one’s ancestors. Southerners can continue to honor their ancestors, but doing so does not necessitate embracing the vile cause for which they fought — just as Germans can honor their ancestors without embracing Nazism and Japanese without embracing militarism."

Jul 04, 15

"Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue


Islam and the Future of Tolerance Book Cover

Buy from AMAZON Buy from B&N

In this short book, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz invite you to join an urgently needed conversation: Is Islam a religion of peace or war? Is it amenable to reform? Why do so many Muslims seem drawn to extremism? What do words like Islamism, jihadism, and fundamentalism mean in today’s world?

Remarkable for the breadth and depth of its analysis, this dialogue between a famous atheist and a former radical is all the more startling for its decorum. Harris and Nawaz have produced something genuinely new: they engage one of the most polarizing issues of our time―fearlessly and fully―and actually make progress.

Islam and the Future of Tolerance has been published with the explicit goal of inspiring a wider public discussion by way of example. In a world riven by misunderstanding and violence, Harris and Nawaz demonstrate how two people with very different views can find common ground.

In this conversation, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz achieve what so many who take part in the debate on Islam and the West fail to accomplish: a civil but honest dialogue. The result is as illuminating as it is fascinating. Courteous and at times even chivalrous, the two men address every thorny issue on Islam, issues that lead so many others into wild shouting matches, personal attacks, and accusations of Islamophobia. In this gem of a book the authors lay it all out and set the rest of us a great example: that an incisive debate on Islam between a believer and a non-believer is attainable. Given the importance and the urgency of the topic, we must all read it and follow in their footsteps.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel, Nomad, and Heretic

Free thought and rational inquiry once characterized the relative liberalism and humanism of ancient Muslim societies and civilizations: the leading Sunni Imam, Abu Hanifa, would debate atheists inside the great mosques of Iraq; the Abbasid caliphs hosted debates amongst the leaders of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at their courts in Baghdad; the Mughal emperors engaged in debate with Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists. Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz should be commended for conducting a frank and wide-ranging conversation about a number of key issues around religion, reform, and Islam in the modern world. Nawaz’s approach is based upon detailed familiarity with extremist worldviews, and with the history and tradition of reform theology and renewal within Islam that desperately needs to be amplified. I hope that this debate will be a fruitful endeavor, and illustrate that, in our increasingly-polarized world, it is possible and even normal for people with different viewpoints to have a civilized conversation and to learn from each other.

Sheikh Dr. Usama Hasan, Islamic scholar

Back in Islam’s formative centuries, the engagement of Muslims with their ideological opponents helped them to forge the doctrines and traditions of their nascent faith―and perhaps now, as Maajid Nawaz locks horns with Sam Harris, we are at the start of another stage in Islam’s evolution. It is certainly a privilege to read their conversation, and to enjoy a flavor of those great debates between rival scholars that were once staged for the entertainment of the Caliph in Baghdad.

Tom Holland, historian and author of In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire

The reform of Islam is shaping up to be the most important issue in political ideology of the twenty-first century. This honest and intelligent dialogue is a superb exploration of the intellectual and moral issues involved.

Steven Pinker, author of The Better Angels of Our Nature"

Jul 04, 15

"Historic Boston and Vicinity Souvenir Playing Cards, 1909
54 cards, published by Chisholm Brothers, Portland, Maine, manufactured by the U.S. Playing Card Co.
Historic Boston and Vicinity Souvenir Playing Cards, 1909 Historic Boston and Vicinity Souvenir Playing Cards, 1909

Historic Boston and Vicinity Souvenir playing cards, published by Chisholm Brothers, c.1910. The back has a large oval with the Bunker Hill Monument in the centre. This is the second edition in which the oval outline on the back design is outlined in gold and the title is in gold print. The cards have the same oval photograph scenes of the area as the first edition, which are tinted in a different colour for each suit.
Subjects
72
Countries
142
Editor's Picks
125
Advertising & Promotional
215
Art & Design
184
Children's
94
History
156
Manufacturers
13
Manufacturing Processes
41
Political
25
Pop Culture
74
Souvenir
66
Tarot & Fortune Telling
330
Other Subjects
From the Shop

Cheery Families card game

£ 30.00

Cheery Families manufactured by De La Rue, London, c.1900
Universal P.C.Co., c.1930

£ 12.00

Universal Playing Card Co. standard pack c.1930 with B/W Joker

"

  • The anniversary of
  • Contrast this sophisticated ___ with the simpler rendering
  • One of the aims of the Nazi genocidal campaign against Poland was to eliminate the Polish nation by destroying the intellectual elite that was the bearer of its culture and the national idea.

    The process began soon after the end of the conquest in 1939 with the so-called Sonderaktion Kraków (roughly, special operation Kraków) when the Gestapo in that city ordered

22 more annotations...

Jul 04, 15

"Description: This original old antique print is taken from 'Meyer's Universum'. published in Germany ca. 1850.

Artists and Engravers: Joseph Meyer (1796 - 1856) was a German industrialist and publisher. most noted for his encyclopedia. Meyers Konversations-Lexikon. He also published the world in pictures on steel engravings 'Meyers Universum'. 1833-1861. 17 volumes in 12 languages with 80.000 subscribers all over Europe. Engraved by Martini."

1 - 20 of 21904 Next › Last »
20 items/page

Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »

Join Diigo